Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />e <br /> <br />recommendations as outlined in the staff memo, including the <br />design of a Request for Proposal/Qualifications to determine <br />what the private sector might have to offer in the way of <br />options. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett said the motion would allow consideration of more than one <br />alternative, but the development of a proposal required substantial time and <br />effort. Unless proposals were perceived to have a reasonable chance of <br />acceptance, none would be received, he predicted. Mr. Holmer said he did not <br />intend to seek detailed and definitive proposals for immediate adoption, but <br />rather to make available a set of workable concepts from both the task force <br />and the private community. Mr. Bennett reiterated his concerns about <br />availability of financing and about direction. Ms. Wooten said the <br />subcommittee had considered parallel processes but had respected professional <br />advice that both would not produce good results. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue said she presumed that finances were the big concern. She <br />suggested seeking a financial analysis to identify types of funds available <br />before redesigning the building. She also asked whether Head Start or other <br />funds might be available. <br /> <br />Mayor Obie said he favored developing a staff proposal to bring back to the <br />council when more councilors were present. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason suggested the council hold a work session, and he reviewed time <br />frames and requirements for private and public financing. Any approach would <br />require operation and maintenance funds and investment in project <br />development, he added. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller said he thought it would be best to go through the community <br />process and then to deal with an RFP/Q. He also said he favored obtaining <br />more information about concurrent or independent processes and waiting for a <br />decision by the full council. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten said the council had agreed to save the building for up to five <br />years, and staff costs for a task force were perhaps $15,000. She said <br />$120,000 for an interior demolition had been available previously, and she <br />did not think any reason existed to delay the process. She said she believed <br />it was important to choose tonight to support a community task force that <br />would be funded through a portion of the funds that had been allocated for <br />demolition. She said that if the best hopes and fondest wishes of a mature <br />community could not be realized, fallback positions like that described by <br />Mr.Bennett were a real possibility, but she thought the community owed itself <br />this minor investment. <br /> <br />Ms. Wooten said she understood the motion to request from staff more <br />clarification of the mission and goals statement, as well as a recommendation <br />on formation of a task force, and task force simultaneous consideration of <br />Requests for Proposals or Qualifications for private/public development. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 25, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br />